Archive for the ‘Who is an Employee?’ Category
By Philip - Wednesday, January 17th, 2007
Many employers use workers supplied by employment agencies. In a run of cases including Dacas and Franks the Court of Appeal has implied a contract of employment between the end user and the worker. In this case here the EAT said that there is no need to imply a contract of employment between end user and worker, where a contract of employment exists between worker and agency. Next time your agency is on the phone, it might be an idea to check to see if the agency employs any worker supplied to you.
Posted in Who is an Employee? | No comments »
Similar Posts:
By Philip - Wednesday, January 3rd, 2007
In a series of cases in the Court of Appeal, the court has found an implied contract of employment between an agency worker and the end user, thereby raising the spectre that the agency worker you have engaged may in fact be your employee. In this decision by the EAT the EAT emphasised that there will be no contract of employment unless there exists a mutuality of obligation between the end user and the agency worker. Furthermore an implied contract of employment will only be implied where it is necessary to imply such a contract. The EAT found that the Tribunal were correct not to find an implied contract of employment, even though the agency worker had been with the end user for many years.
Posted in Who is an Employee? | No comments »
Similar Posts:
By Philip - Wednesday, November 8th, 2006
The EAT in a recent Download Case.doc reminds readers that in order for someone not to be an employee there has to be an absence of mutuality of obligation. The stress was on the mutuality, ie not only must the Company not be under any obligation to provide work, the worker must not be under any obligation to accept any work that is offered. If there is an absence of mutuality of obligation then there will be no contract of employment. Not an earth shattering decision but a timely reminder of the relevant test.
Posted in Who is an Employee? | No comments »
Similar Posts:
By Philip - Tuesday, October 31st, 2006
The EAT have decided in a recent case that religious ministers can be governed by an employment contract and therefore qualify for unfair dismissal and redundancy payments. The House of Lords had already established that religious ministers are protected for discrimination law issues.
We are keenly awaiting instructions from redundant rabbis, misconducted mullahs, and performance managed proctors!
Posted in Who is an Employee? | 2 comments »
Similar Posts:
